Animal identification has been around for thousands of years as indicated in the Code of Hammurabi dating back to about 1754 BC. At the time, the preferred method of marking a body part (branding) was used primarily to prevent the theft of valuable animal assets like horses. Nowadays, in addition to theft prevention and general proof of ownership, animal identification serves an important role in the production management and disease control of livestock, the management of endangered and protected species, as well as the essential inspection process of animal imports and exports. Globalization has increased the worldwide demand for animals for a variety of purposes, ranging from meat consumption to collecting exotic pets.
Accordingly, animals are being mass-bred and exported, but this has resulted in the spread of epidemics like the mad cow disease, which had previously been limited to specific farms or regions. Therefore, each and every state including the UN has sought to employ an effective and reliable animal tracking and identification system to manage the risks involved in the domestic and international production, distribution, and transportation of animals. More recently, various studies are under progress in an attempt to improve the traditional methods and systems by incorporating new developments in information technology.
Conventional methods of animal (livestock) management include: ear notching, primarily for pigs; plastic and bar-coded ear tagging, primarily for cows and sheep; number designation on neck chains for cows; freeze branding numbers or letters using metal cooled with liquid nitrogen, dry ice, or alcohol; paint branding; and tattooing. These procedures require needless or painful modifications or attachments to the animal's body, putting animals and the necessary professional handlers in potential harm's way. Even when executed without complications, these external markers or labels can be difficult to identify in the dark, or become damaged by the physical activities of the animal or by human acts of vandalism.
The alternatives to the above methods largely fall under two categories: electronic and biometric identification. Electronic identification requires the use of an electronic ear tag, injectable transponder, or a ruminal blouse to contain and be scanned for the desired information. However, unintentional damage to or intentional tampering of the microchip or antenna, as well as the unavailability of an appropriate scanning device can make identification impossible. Also, some studies have found that the material surrounding the microchip and antenna unit can cause tumors or tissue necrosis in the animals, providing significant reasons for concern among owners of companion and livestock animals.
The second alternative, on the other hand, is more promising. Biometric identification relies on the intrinsic characteristics unique to individuals without the necessity of invasive procedures and, unlike the traditional methods or microchip identification, the biometric data of an animal cannot be doctored. Current ongoing studies are seeking to make progress in animal iris and retina imaging, DNA analysis, and nose pattern imaging. However, the first three have not been developed enough yet to be practically applicable in the field.
As such, some limited efforts were made in the late 20th century, when the uniqueness of individual nose patterns on certain livestock became widely accepted, to obtain and compare nose patterns on individual cows or sheep in the same way fingerprints were initially collected: by cleaning the surface of the nose followed by obtaining ink impressions. However, this method is rather primitive and has consistently presented many issues in terms of practicality and accuracy; depending on the inexperience of the administrator there were unwanted ink bleeds or distortions on the print due to uneven application of pressure, often resulting in disparate prints of the same nose even when performed by a single individual. Also, a healthy animal nose is meant to maintain moisture through natural nasal irrigation or deliberate licking, which means each ink transfer is a laborious process.
Korean Laid-open Patent Publication No. 10-2004-0008072 presents the technical configuration of portable information terminal for controlling cattle, while Korea Laid-open Patent Publication No. 10-2004-0006822 discusses a method of remote bovine identification and health monitoring using previously scanned nose pattern data via the internet or a network. However, due to their reliance on the traditional ink impression method before scanning the resulting ink print to obtain the nose pattern image, the limitations in accuracy and the potential for aberration arising from human error during the process are prevalent. Moreover, the above methods cater only to bovine subjects and thus are inapplicable to animals with differently sized, shaped and patterned noses.
Korea Laid-open Patent Publication No. 10-2002-00066771 presents the technical configuration of a system of canine identification using nose pattern data through a communication network, but it does not specify the method of obtaining such data.
On the other hand, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/770,120 does disclose a technical construction of obtaining the nose pattern images of canine pets. The pattern data are collected by either macro shooting with a specialized camera to compensate for the difficulty in focus adjustments while manually holding the subject animal's muzzle, or by getting an impression of the nose—similar to the traditional method—using some pliable plastic coated with ink or a paper or card comprising two different layers of chemicals in place of ink.
With the macro shooting approach, size and spacing distortion in the nose pattern image can occur; and, as mentioned in the said patent as a point of concern, it is difficult for an average person operating a conventional digital camera or camcorder to make precise focus adjustments. Another method described in the above patent uses a polaroid camera where the focus is set by converging two irradiating beams, but it is highly likely that during the process the light will agitate and cause the canine subject to resist the restraint or move and impede the photography. Moreover, out in the field it is difficult to predict each subject animal's sensitivity or reaction to deliberate lighting and often smaller dogs are quite intimidated by the camera itself, both adding to the difficulty. Then there is also the problem of getting unwanted light reflections off of the moisture normally present on the nose skin when direct illumination is used during image capture.
The latter approach using contact impression is identical in its practice as well as limitations to the traditional inking method. In addition, a dog's tendency to actively keep their noses wet through licking when the moisture is deliberately wiped off means a hurried effort is required to obtain a clean impression, while the size and shape specification of the equipment limits the appropriate subjects to canine breeds.
Another prior invention related to the present one is the Japanese Laid-open Patent Publication 2003-346148, which prescribes that a glass frame or some other transparent material be pressed against a cow's nose to obtain the image with a digital camera for analysis. However, this approach is also similar to the traditional ink impression method wherein a transparent frame has merely replaced the decal paper, and presents the same distortion issues that result from direct contact with the nose as well as its limitation to bovine subjects.
Thus follows that there is a demand for a streamlined animal identification system that does not require professional operators, can overcome the aforementioned encumbrances, and can be easily and economically applied to small farm or livestock environments, animal registration systems, and even import and export inspections.